'RAW' files, misleading reviews.

Started Apr 5, 2015 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Skipper494 Forum Pro • Posts: 11,264
'RAW' files, misleading reviews.
3

The continual listing in reviews of cameras having 'uncompressed' files is utter nonsense. How do you explain that an FZ70 has 33% more resolution than my D700, but approximately 25% less MB in the RAW file? Tiffs converted from RAW shows that the FZ70 has  approximately 33% more MB in those files, which is roughly correct. In other words, the FZ70 RAW (RW2) files are compressed considerably.

This is very misleading to the prospective buyer, as the more a 'RAW' file is compressed, the more artifacts will show up in enlarged images. Comparing 'RAW' files from a NEX 7 and a Samsung NX20 will confirm this quite obviously. For myself, I was considering pairing an a6000 with my NEX 7, until I compared files from my NX20 and NX200 and found that the Samsung files were noticeably better, the Sony files showing considerable artifacts. The manuals for Samsung's NX1 and NX500 show a menu option for turning off RAW compression and all others should have the same option. Now I am considering selling my NEX 7 system, despite excellent lenses, and will probably get an NX1. RAW should be RAW, not some arbitrarily processed file4.

Nikon D700 Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ70 Samsung NX1 Samsung NX20 Samsung NX200 Samsung NX500 Sony a6000 Sony Alpha NEX-7
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Aur
Aur
Aur
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow